_____
From: nicholas williams
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 8:37 PM
“I write bew and lyw. There was never any suggestion that they should be written the same.
I cannot find <iw> anywhere in TH. Nor have I ever seen it anywhere else in traditional Cornish.
<yw> and <ew> are enough.
I will not write <iw> because I have never seen it anywhere in traditional Cornish and it isn't necessary.
Nicholas”
Well, I misunderstood you then. I was under the impression that you didn’t think that lyw-words and bew-words contained two distinct diphthongal phonemes.
The graphs <iw> are found in traditional Cornish in the word <diweth> TH 18a. I also consider Lhuyd’s <iụ> to be a possible variation of <iw> as his <ụ> means <w>. It is no more authentic or inauthentic than writing <dh> for his <δ>. Also, MC <y> and <i> were in free variation and conditioned more by their position in the word; Cornish scribes avoided <iw> because of minim.
Dan
“On 2010 Du 23, at 18:42, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
It’s not inauthentic, after all <iw> occurs in TH.
Where?”
TH 18a <diweth>
“It’s just very rare because mediaeval scribes would have resisted writing <iu> or <iw> because of minim.
Nonsense. The same would apply to in which is common.”
Maybe there was some other scribal constriction against <iw> why else would <y> and <i> be in free variation, but not <yw> and <iw>.
“The SWF has to distinguish a threefold series,
Because it follows George's fantasy phonology”
No, because that was agreed upon in the Ad-Hoc group. George’s threefold distinction may be wrong for 1500, but it is not wrong to assume this series was part of earlier pre-MC phonology. In that sense both KK and the SWF/M are archaising.
Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20101123/c0f46715/attachment-0001.html>